Academic literature on the topic 'Logics and argumentation'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Logics and argumentation.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Logics and argumentation"
1
Karpovitch, V. N. "Rationality, Logic, and the Theory of Argumentation." Siberian Journal of Philosophy 16, no. 3 (2018): 16–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2018-16-3-16-27.
Full textAbstract:
The theory of argumentation is supposed to be connected to rationality. Traditionally, rationality was defined in terms of logic, and at the same time considered as an essential part of the theory of argumentation. Thus argumentation acquired the property of rationality, while the rhetorical component ensured the success of communication. However, the possibilities of different logics and the existence of practical rationality assume a different order of categories by their generality: rationality, argumentation, logic.
2
Bodanza, Gustavo A., and Fernando A. Tohm�. "Local logics, non-monotonicity and defeasible argumentation." Journal of Logic, Language and Information 14, no. 1 (December 2004): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10849-004-4510-7.
Full text
3
Bodanza, Gustavo A., and Fernando A. Tohm�. "Local Logics, Non-Monotonicity and Defeasible Argumentation." Journal of Logic, Language and Information 14, no. 1 (December 2005): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10849-005-4510-2.
Full text
4
Matviienko, I. S. "МИСТЕЦТВО МИСЛИТИ ЛОГІЧНО ТА ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ФІЛОСОФСЬКОЇ АРГУМЕНТАЦІЇ." HUMANITARIAN STUDIOS: PEDAGOGICS, PSYCHOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY 12, no. 1 (January 2021): 112–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog2021.01.112.
Full textAbstract:
Argumentation, as an assemblage of proofs in defense of the stated positions is always present in philosophical dispute, and the extent to which you are conclusive in this dispute depends on your skills of argumentation. That is why this article is devoted to the examination of philosophical argumentation and its use of formal logics.
5
Dung, P. M., and P. M. Thang. "Closure and Consistency In Logic-Associated Argumentation." Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 49 (January 29, 2014): 79–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1613/jair.4107.
Full textAbstract:
Properties like logical closure and consistency are important properties in any logical reasoning system. Caminada and Amgoud showed that not every logic-based argument system satisfies these relevant properties. But under conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition of the monotonic part of the underlying logic, ASPIC-like systems satisfy these properties. In contrast, the logical closure and consistency properties are not well-understood for other well-known and widely applied systems like logic programming or assumption based argumentation. Though conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition seem intuitive in ASPIC-like systems, they rule out many sensible ASPIC-like systems that satisfy both properties of closure and consistency. We present a new condition referred to as the self-contradiction axiom that guarantees the consistency property in both ASPIC-like and assumption-based systems and is implied by both properties of closure under contraposition or transposition. We develop a logic-associated abstract argumentation framework, by associating abstract argumentation with abstract logics to represent the conclusions of arguments. We show that logic-associated abstract argumentation frameworks capture ASPIC-like systems (without preferences) and assumption-based argumentation. We present two simple and natural properties of compactness and cohesion in logic-associated abstract argumentation frameworks and show that they capture the logical closure and consistency properties. We demonstrate that in both assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC-like systems, cohesion follows naturally from the self-contradiction axiom. We further give a translation from ASPIC-like systems (without preferences) into equivalent assumption-based systems that keeps the self-contradiction axiom invariant.
6
AMENDOLA, GIOVANNI, and FRANCESCO RICCA. "Paracoherent Answer Set Semantics meets Argumentation Frameworks." Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 19, no. 5-6 (September 2019): 688–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1471068419000139.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn the last years, abstract argumentation has met with great success in AI, since it has served to capture several non-monotonic logics for AI. Relations between argumentation framework (AF) semantics and logic programming ones are investigating more and more. In particular, great attention has been given to the well-known stable extensions of an AF, that are closely related to the answer sets of a logic program. However, if a framework admits a small incoherent part, no stable extension can be provided. To overcome this shortcoming, two semantics generalizing stable extensions have been studied, namely semi-stable and stage. In this paper, we show that another perspective is possible on incoherent AFs, called paracoherent extensions, as they have a counterpart in paracoherent answer set semantics. We compare this perspective with semi-stable and stage semantics, by showing that computational costs remain unchanged, and moreover an interesting symmetric behaviour is maintained.
7
Smaling, Adri. "Argumentation, Cooperation and Charity in Qualitative Inquiry." Concepts and Transformation 3, no. 1-2 (January 1, 1998): 129–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cat.3.1-2.08sma.
Full textAbstract:
Contemporary argumentation theory is the most appropriate logical basis of qualitative inquiry. Formal logics, deductive or inductive, have turned out to have little value in some particular practical situations and local contexts. An optimal observance of the cooperative principle and the charity principle in argumentation theory may not only be merely methodologically motivated, it may also have an ethical motivation. This ethical motivation may have a methodological significance and may be supported by a philosophy of life.
8
Vesic, S. "Identifying the Class of Maxi-Consistent Operators in Argumentation." Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 47 (May 21, 2013): 71–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1613/jair.3860.
Full textAbstract:
Dungs abstract argumentation theory can be seen as a general framework for non-monotonic reasoning. An important question is then: what is the class of logics that can be subsumed as instantiations of this theory? The goal of this paper is to identify and study the large class of logic-based instantiations of Dungs theory which correspond to the maxi-consistent operator, i.e. to the function which returns maximal consistent subsets of an inconsistent knowledge base. In other words, we study the class of instantiations where very extension of the argumentation system corresponds to exactly one maximal consistent subset of the knowledge base. We show that an attack relation belonging to this class must be conflict-dependent, must not be valid, must not be conflict-complete, must not be symmetric etc. Then, we show that some attack relations serve as lower or upper bounds of the class (e.g. if an attack relation contains canonical undercut then it is not a member of this class). By using our results, we show for all existing attack relations whether or not they belong to this class. We also define new attack relations which are members of this class. Finally, we interpret our results and discuss more general questions, like: what is the added value of argumentation in such a setting? We believe that this work is a first step towards achieving our long-term goal, which is to better understand the role of argumentation and, particularly, the expressivity of logic-based instantiations of Dung-style argumentation frameworks.
9
CHESÑEVAR, CARLOS, MCGINNIS, SANJAY MODGIL, IYAD RAHWAN, CHRIS REED, GUILLERMO SIMARI, MATTHEW SOUTH, GERARD VREESWIJK, and STEVEN WILLMOTT. "Towards an argument interchange format." Knowledge Engineering Review 21, no. 4 (December 2006): 293–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0269888906001044.
Full textAbstract:
The theory of argumentation is a rich, interdisciplinary area of research straddling the fields of artificial intelligence, philosophy, communication studies, linguistics and psychology. In the last few years, significant progress has been made in understanding the theoretical properties of different argumentation logics. However, one major barrier to the development and practical deployment of argumentation systems is the lack of a shared, agreed notation or ‘interchange format’ for argumentation and arguments. In this paper, we describe a draft specification for an argument interchange format (AIF) intended for representation and exchange of data between various argumentation tools and agent-based applications. It represents a consensus ‘abstract model’ established by researchers across fields of argumentation, artificial intelligence and multi-agent systems. In its current form, this specification is intended as a starting point for further discussion and elaboration by the community, rather than an attempt at a definitive, all-encompassing model. However, to demonstrate proof of concept, a use case scenario is briefly described. Moreover, three concrete realizations or ‘reifications’ of the abstract model are illustrated.
10
Kampik, Timotheus, and Juan Carlos Nieves. "Abstract argumentation and the rational man." Journal of Logic and Computation 31, no. 2 (February 4, 2021): 654–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exab003.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning that has gained popularity in the symbolic artificial intelligence community. In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentation that were refined over the years are typically evaluated from a formal logics perspective; an analysis that is based on models of economically rational decision-making does not exist. In this paper, we work towards addressing this issue by analysing abstract argumentation from the perspective of the rational man paradigm in microeconomic theory. To assess under which conditions abstract argumentation-based decision-making can be considered economically rational, we derive reference independence as a non-monotonic inference property from a formal model of economic rationality and create a new argumentation principle that ensures compliance with this property. We then compare the reference independence principle with other reasoning principles, in particular with cautious monotony and rational monotony. We show that the argumentation semantics as proposed in Dung’s seminal paper, as well as other semantics we evaluate, with the exception of naive semantics and the SCC-recursive CF2 semantics, violate the reference independence principle. Consequently, we investigate how structural properties of argumentation frameworks impact the reference independence principle and identify cyclic expansions (both even and odd cycles) as the root of the problem. Finally, we put reference independence into the context of preference-based argumentation and show that for this argumentation variant, which explicitly models preferences, reference independence cannot be ensured in a straight-forward manner.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Logics and argumentation"
1
Baumann, Ringo. "Metalogical Contributions to the Nonmonotonic Theory of Abstract Argumentation." Doctoral thesis, Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, 2014. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:15-qucosa-132973.
Full textAbstract:
The study of nonmonotonic logics is one mayor field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The reason why such kind of formalisms are so attractive to model human reasoning is that they allow to withdraw former conclusion. At the end of the 1980s the novel idea of using argumentation to model nonmonotonic reasoning emerged in AI. Nowadays argumentation theory is a vibrant research area in AI, covering aspects of knowledge representation, multi-agent systems, and also philosophical questions.
Phan Minh Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) play a dominant role in the field of argumentation. In AFs arguments
and attacks between them are treated as primitives, i.e. the
internal structure of arguments is not considered. The major focus is
on resolving conflicts. To this end a variety of semantics have been defined, each of them specifying acceptable sets of arguments, so-called extensions, in a particular way. Although, Dung-style AFs are among the simplest argumentation systems one can think of, this approach is still powerful. It can be seen as a general theory capturing several nonmonotonic formalisms as well as a tool for solving well-known problems as the stable-marriage problem.
This thesis is mainly concerned with the investigation of metalogical
properties of Dung’s abstract theory. In particular, we provide cardinality, monotonicity and splitting results as well as characterization theorems for equivalence notions. The established results have theoretical and practical gains. On the one hand, they yield deeper theoretical insights into how this nonmonotonic theory works, and on the other the obtained results can be used to refine existing algorithms or even give rise to new computational procedures. A further main part is the study of problems regarding dynamic aspects of abstract argumentation. Most noteworthy we solve the so-called enforcing and the more general minimal change problem for a huge number of semantics.
2
Raddaoui, Badran. "Contributions aux approches logiques de l'argumentation en intelligence artificielle." Thesis, Artois, 2013. http://www.theses.fr/2013ARTO0412/document.
Full textAbstract:
Cette thèse se situe dans le domaine des modèles de l’argumentation en intelligence artificielle. Ces modèles constituent des outils très populaires pour l’étude de raisonnements en présence d’incohérences dans les bases de connaissances et lors de la négociation entre agents et la prise de décision. Un modèle argumentatif est un processus interactionnel principalement basé sur la construction d’arguments et de contre-arguments, l’étude des relations entre ces différents arguments et la mise en place de critères permettant de déterminer le statut de chaque argument afin de sélectionner les arguments (les plus) acceptables.Dans ce cadre, ce travail a porté sur l’étude d’un système particulier : le système d’argumentation déductif. Un argument est alors entendu comme un couple prémisses-conclusion tel que la conclusion soit une formule qui puisse être déduite des prémisses. Nous y avons traité plusieurs questions. Tout d’abord, partant du constat que le raisonnement par l’absurde est valide en logique propositionnelle classique, nous proposons une méthode de génération d’arguments en faveur d’une proposition donnée. Cette approche s’étend au calcul des undercuts canoniques, arguments identifiés comme représentant tous les contre-arguments. Contrairement aux autres approches proposées dans la littérature, notre technique est complète au sens où elle permet de générer, modulo une possible explosion combinatoire, tous les arguments relatifs à une formule logique quelconque. Ensuite, nous avons proposé un cadre d’argumentation en logique conditionnelle. Les logiques conditionnelles sont souvent considérées comme étant tout particulièrement adaptées à la formalisation de raisonnements de nature hypothétique. Leur connecteur conditionnel est en effet souvent plus proche de l’intuition que l’on peut avoir de l’implication que ne l’est l’implication matérielle de la logique propositionnelle classique. Ceci nous permet de proposer un concept de contrariété conditionnelle qui couvre à la fois les situations de conflits logiques fondés sur l’incohérence et une forme particulière de conflit qui ne se traduit pas naturellement par un conflit basé sur l’incohérence : quand un agent affirme une règle de type Si alors, une seconde règle qui peut en être déduite et qui impose la satisfaction de prémisses supplémentaires peut apparaître conflictuelle. Nous étudions alors sur cette base les principaux éléments d’une théorie de l’argumentation dans une logique conditionnelle. Enfin, le dernier point étudié dans ce travail concerne le raisonnement au sujet de ressources consommables, dans un cadre où les formules logiques sont elles mêmes consommées dans le processus déductif. Nous proposons une logique, simple et proche du langage et des principes de la logique propositionnelle classique, permettant le raisonnement à partir de ressources consommables et de quantité bornée. Nous y revisitons également les principaux éléments d’une théorie logique de l’argumentationThis thesis focus on the field of argumentation models in artificial intelligence. These models form very popular tools to study reasoning under inconsistency in knowledge bases, negotiation between agents, and also in decision making. An argumentative model is an interactional process mainly based on the construction of arguments and counter-arguments, then studying the relations between these arguments, and finally the introduction of some criteria to identifying the status of each argument in order to select the (most) acceptable of them.In this context, this work was dealt with the study of a particular system: the deductive argumentation framework. An argument is then understood as a pair premises-conclusion such that conclusion is a logical formula entailed by premises, a non-ordered collection of logical formulas. We have addressed several issues. First of all, on the basis that reductio ad absurdum is valid in classical propositional logic, we propose a method to compute arguments for a given statement. This approach is extended to generate canonical undercuts, arguments identified as the representative of all counter-arguments. Contrary to the other approaches proposed in the literature, our technique is complete in the sense that all arguments relative to the statement at hand are generated and so are all relevant counter-arguments. Secondly, we proposed a logic based argumentation in conditional logic. Conditional logic is often regarded as an appealing setting for the formalization of hypothetical reasoning. Their conditional connective is often regarded as a very suitable connective to encode many implicative reasoning patterns real-life and attempts to avoid some pitfalls of material implication of propositional logic. This allows us to put in light and encompass a concept of conditional contrariety thats covers both usual inconsistency-based conflict and a specific form of conflict that often occurs in real-life argumentation: i.e., when an agent asserts an If then rule, it can be argued that the satisfaction of additional conditions are required for the conclusion of a rule to hold. Then, in that case we study the main foundational concepts of an argumentation theory in conditional logic. Finally, the last point investigated in this work concerns the reasoning about bounded resources, within a framework in which logical formulas are themselves consumed in the deductive process. First, a simple variant of Boolean logic is introduced, allowing us to reason about consuming resources. Then, the main concepts of logic-based argumentation are revisited in this framework
3
Mann, N. "Logical argumentation using generalised knowledge." Thesis, University College London (University of London), 2008. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1446286/.
Full textAbstract:
Computers are increasingly being used in situations where a conclusion must be reached based on a wide range of knowledge. As the volume of this stored knowledge increases, so does the possibility of inconsistency within that knowledge. Argumen tation is one solution to this problem, and argumentation based upon propositional logic has been extensively explored in the literature. However, this is insufficient for many applications, such as the use of temporal data. First order logic is a possi ble solution from the literature, but not all of the issues concerning this have been explored. This thesis discusses aspects of argumentation using extensions to propositional logic in order to explore the space of possibilities between propositional logic and full first order logic. In particular, logics with some form of generalisation are considered, incorporating variable, function and predicate symbols. The first form of generalisation considered includes an argumentation system using a calculus which is capable of expressing temporal knowledge. This general isation offers two new and complementary notions of an argument, and these are shown to have some advantages over more traditional arguments in some circum stances. The second form of generalisation concerns predicate and function symbols, and is based around applications of causal mapping, which is a technique using a graphical representation of a logical database in order to show how letters within that database influence each other. Argumentation using this generalisation is con sidered, and a method for representing arguments graphically in causal maps is introduced. The third form of generalisation considers full first order logic, and the methods proposed in previous chapters are used as an insight into problems within first order argumentation. An alternative definition of an argument is proposed as a solution to these problems, and these are considered within argument trees. In conclusion, in this thesis I have shown how first order extensions to proposi tional logic can be used within argumentation systems. I have shown some prob lems when using generalisations, and presented solutions to these problems. These problems and solutions are explored when using first order logic directly in argu mentation.
4
AMARAL, Stefânio Ramalho do. "Estratégias argumentativas de universitários: estudo comparativo de três práticas pedagógicas." Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 2016. https://repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/18864.
Full textAbstract:
Submitted by Fabio Sobreira Campos da Costa (fabio.sobreira@ufpe.br) on 2017-05-23T12:47:39Z
No. of bitstreams: 2
license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5)
@ STEFÂNIO AMARAL - biblioteca - FINAL.pdf: 1963384 bytes, checksum: fe89df35e593e6c0282f29835617dffd (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2017-05-23T12:47:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) @ STEFÂNIO AMARAL - biblioteca - FINAL.pdf: 1963384 bytes, checksum: fe89df35e593e6c0282f29835617dffd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-24
CNPQ
Este estudo teve objetivo de investigar possíveis diferenças no raciocínio argumentativo de estudantes universitários que passaram por três diferentes práticas pedagógicas. O raciocínio argumentativo é compreendido como uma atividade fundamentalmente metacognitiva, realizada através de estratégias como justificação de ideias, antecipação de perspectivas alternativas e contrárias, e réplica a perspectivas divergentes (KUHN, 1991). A especificidade analítica consistiu na comparação de estratégias argumentativas exibidas pelos participantes na reflexão sobre assuntos quotidianos e controversos. A partir de adaptações do roteiro de entrevista proposto por Kuhn (1991), foram realizadas entrevistas semiestruturadas individuais sobre dois tópicos quotidianos, sociais e polemizáveis, sobre os quais os participantes poderiam elaborar suas perspectivas (teorias causais), justificá-las usando evidências, antecipar possíveis teorias alternativas e contra-argumentos, e replicar a estas perspectivas divergentes. Participaram do estudo 15 indivíduos, distribuídos em três grupos, de acordo com as disciplinas cursadas: seis estudantes de uma disciplina que foca a argumentação como mediadora para ensino-aprendizagem de conteúdos curriculares de psicologia, quatro estudantes de uma disciplina introdutória à lógica e cinco estudantes de um terceiro curso de humanidades, o qual não possui regularmente em sua estrutura curricular práticas com foco específico no raciocínio de estudantes. Os dados foram analisados em dois níveis: identificação, no conjunto de dados, das categorias propostas por Kuhn (1991), e comparação dos grupos quanto a possíveis diferenças nas estratégias argumentativas exibidas pelos participantes na reflexão sobre os tópicos propostos. As análises mostraram que a inserção em disciplinas focadas na melhoria do raciocínio (DIP e DIL) mobiliza no indivíduo uma tendência a refletir sobre os fundamentos (através da elaboração de evidências) e limites de suas ideias (antecipando contra-argumentos e teorias alternativas). Discute-se que fatores como motivação, falta de preparo prévio e conceituações acerca do objetivo central da argumentação (defesa do próprio ponto de vista e consideração de perspectivas alternativas) podem explicar o limitado desempenho observado em algumas competências.
This study aims to investigate possible differences in argumentative reasoning of university students who have gone through three different pedagogical experiences. The argumentative reasoning is understood as a fundamentally metacognitive activity held through strategies such as justification of ideas, anticipation of alternative and opposing perspectives, and rebuttal of divergent perspectives (KUHN, 1991). The analytical specificity of this study consists on comparison of argumentative strategies that appear as one thinks about everyday and controversial topics. The method was based in adaptations of the interview script proposed by Kuhn (1991), that is, individual semi-structured interviews about two common, social and controversial topics in which participants should develop their perspectives (causal theories), justify them using evidence, anticipate alternative theories and counter-arguments, and rebuttal these divergent perspectives. The study included 15 participants divided into three groups according to the subjects they studied: six students of a course that focuses on the argument as a mediator of teaching and learning of contents from psychology curriculum (DIP), four students of Introduction to Logic (DIL), five students of another humanities course which does not focus on the development of the reasoning. The data were analyzed in two levels: analysis in order to identify the set of the data collected among the categories proposed by Kuhn (1991), and compare possible differences in argumentative strategies displayed by the participants in the debate on the proposed topics. The analysis showed that the inclusion of disciplines that focused on the improvement of reasoning (DIP and DIL) mobilizes in the individual a tendency to think about the grounds (through the development of evidence) and limits of their ideas (anticipating counter-arguments and alternative theories). So this study argues that factors such as motivation, lack of prior preparation and concepts about the main objective of the argument (defense's own point of view and consideration of alternative perspectives) can explain the weak performance observed in some skills.
5
Preacher, Jon Nelsen. "Implicature and argumentation." CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2003. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project/2437.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis explores the role, if any, that implicature plays as a strategy in informal debate. Transcripts of spontaneous debates from television and radio public affairs talk shows were analyzed with a focus on the use of implicature as a strategic rhetorical tool employed to gain advantage in an argument.
6
Bianchi, Cezira [UNESP]. "A lógica no desenvolvimento da competência argumentativa." Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), 2007. http://hdl.handle.net/11449/102152.
Full textAbstract:
Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:31:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0
Previous issue date: 2007-04-24Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T21:03:14Z : No. of bitstreams: 1
bianchi_c_dr_rcla.pdf: 3784213 bytes, checksum: 74a2fc2a0783a2ad9b404b340de5e04e (MD5)Este trabalho mostra um caminho para a mudança, na prática pedagógica, pela inserção da Lógica no currículo, como tema transdisciplinar, articulador do raciocínio e construtor da argumentação. A proposta é inverter o papel do modo de pensar: de coadjuvante para protagonista. Quando as idéias forem veículos para os alunos compreenderem que podem pensar bem e reinventar idéias, os conteúdos serão menos esquecidos. Ensinando modos de pensar, otimizamos a capacidade de análise de quaisquer textos, tenham informações matemáticas ou não. Pela linguagem, construímos consensos que nos possibilitam viver em sociedade: quanto mais construímos sentidos para nossa vida, mais nos tornamos sujeitos históricos partícipes da realidade, assumindo posição na reconstrução dos discursos, passando da simples repetição das falas dos outros à nossa condição de autores, críticos e criativos. Que esta proposta possa ser um embrião para a Lógica passar a ser meio e método de transformação do conhecimento real pela análise crítica, contribuindo para um futuro melhor, ajudando os educadores a desenvolver em seus alunos as capacidades discursiva e argumentativa, o raciocínio e o senso crítico.
This work shows a way to improve teachers posture by inserting Logic as a subject at regular schools programs. We understand 'Logic as a thought articulator e and argumentation builder. The idea is to create a main role for the ways of how to think. When the ideas are tools for the students to understand they can think about and re-invent ideas, the contents taught will not be so quite forgotten. By teaching how to think, we optimize the analysis capacity of any texts, whether they involve mathematical issues or not. We build consenses that will make our life in society possible: the more we build sense to our life, the more aware we become of our role of citizens who should take part in the society's decisions, not by repeating other people's speeches, but creating our own, becoming authors, critics and creative. May this project be a seed so Logic can become a tool to change real knowledge by critical analysis, contributing to a better future, helping teachers to develop the speech and argumentation capacity of the students, improving their critical sense.
7
Lindgren, Helena. "Decision support in dementia care : developing systems for interactive reasoning." Doctoral thesis, Umeå : Datavetenskap Computing Science, 2007. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-1138.
Full text
8
Loureiro, E. N. "Logical and emotional argumentation by Brazilian religious ministers." Thesis, University of Sheffield, 2003. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.401130.
Full text
9
Bouyahia, Tarek. "Metrics for security activities assisted by argumentative logic." Thesis, Ecole nationale supérieure Mines-Télécom Atlantique Bretagne Pays de la Loire, 2017. http://www.theses.fr/2017IMTA0013/document.
Full textAbstract:
L'accroissement et la diversification des services offerts par les systèmes informatiques modernes rendent la tâche de sécuriser ces systèmes encore plus complexe. D'une part, l'évolution du nombre de services système accroît le nombre des vulnérabilités qui peuvent être exploitées par des attaquants afin d'atteindre certains objectifs d'intrusion. D'autre part, un système de sécurité moderne doit assurer un certain niveau de performance et de qualité de service tout en maintenant l'état de sécurité. Ainsi, les systèmes de sécurité modernes doivent tenir compte des exigences de l'utilisateur au cours du processus de sécurité. En outre, la réaction dans des contextes critiques contre une attaque après son exécution ne peut pas toujours remédier à ses effets néfastes. Dans certains cas, il est essentiel que le système de sécurité soit en avance de phase par rapport à l'attaquant et de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour l'empêcher d'atteindre son objectif d'intrusion. Nous soutenons dans cette thèse que le processus de sécurité doit suivre un raisonnement intelligent qui permet au système de prévoir les attaques qui peuvent se produire par corrélation à une alerte détectée et d'appliquer les meilleures contre-mesures possibles. Nous proposons une approche qui génère des scénarios potentiels d'attaque qui correspondent à une alerte détectée. Ensuite, nous nous concentrons sur le processus de génération d'un ensemble approprié de contre-mesures contre les scénarios d'attaque générés. Un ensemble généré des contre-mesures est considéré comme approprié dans l'approche proposée s'il présente un ensemble cohérent et il satisfait les exigences de l'administrateur de sécurité (par exemple, la disponibilité). Nous soutenons dans cette thèse que le processus de réaction peut être considéré comme un débat entre deux agents. D'un côté, l'attaquant choisit ses arguments comme étant un ensemble d'actions pour essayer d'atteindre un objectif d'intrusion, et de l'autre côté l'agent défendant la cible choisit ses arguments comme étant un ensemble de contre-mesures pour bloquer la progression de l'attaquant ou atténuer les effets de l'attaque. D'autre part, nous proposons une approche basée sur une méthode d'aide à la décision multicritère. Cette approche assiste l'administrateur de sécurité lors de la sélection des contre-mesures parmi l'ensemble approprié des contre-mesures générées à partir de la première approche. Le processus d'assistance est basé sur l'historique des décisions de l'administrateur de sécurité. Cette approche permet également de sélectionner automatiquement des contre-mesures appropriées lorsque l'administrateur de sécurité est dans l'incapacité de les sélectionner (par exemple, en dehors des heures de travail, par manque de connaissances sur l'attaque). Enfin, notre approche est implémentée et testée dans le cadre des systèmes automobilesThe growth and diversity of services offered by modern systems make the task of securing these systems a complex exercise. On the one hand, the evolution of the number of system services increases the risk of causing vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities can be exploited by malicious users to reach some intrusion objectives. On the other hand, the most recent competitive systems are those that ensure a certain level of performance and quality of service while maintaining the safety state. Thus, modern security systems must consider the user requirements during the security process.In addition, reacting in critical contexts against an attack after its execution can not always mitigate the adverse effects of the attack. In these cases, security systems should be in a phase ahead of the attacker in order to take necessary measures to prevent him/her from reaching his/her intrusion objective. To address those problems, we argue in this thesis that the reaction process must follow a smart reasoning. This reasoning allows the system, according to a detected attack, to preview the related attacks that may occur and to apply the best possible countermeasures. On the one hand, we propose an approach that generates potential attack scenarios given a detected alert. Then, we focus on the generation process of an appropriate set of countermeasures against attack scenarios generated among all system responses defined for the system. A generated set of countermeasures is considered as appropriate in the proposed approach if it presents a coherent set (i.e., it does not contain conflictual countermeasures) and it satisfies security administrator requirements (e.g., performance, availability). We argue in this thesis that the reaction process can be seen as two agents arguing against each other. On one side the attacker chooses his arguments as a set of actions to try to reach an intrusion objective, and on the other side the agent defending the target chooses his arguments as a set of countermeasures to block the attacker's progress or mitigate the attack effects. On the other hand, we propose an approach based on a recommender system using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. This approach assists security administrators while selecting countermeasures among the appropriate set of countermeasures generated from the first approach. The assistance process is based on the security administrator decisions historic. This approach permits also, to automatically select appropriate system responses in critical cases where the security administrator is unable to select them (e.g., outside working hours, lack of knowledge about the ongoing attack). Finally, our approaches are implemented and tested in the automotive system use case to ensure that our approaches implementation successfully responded to real-time constraints
10
Mailly, Jean-Guy. "Dynamics of argumentation frameworks." Thesis, Artois, 2015. http://www.theses.fr/2015ARTO0402/document.
Full textAbstract:
Cette thèse traite du problème de l'intégration d'une nouvelle information dans un système d'argumentation abstrait. Un tel système est un graphe orienté dont les nœuds représentent les arguments, et les arcs représentent les attaques entre arguments. Il existe divers moyen de décider quels arguments sont acceptés par l'agent qui utilise un tel système pour représenter ses croyances.Il peut arriver dans la vie d'un agent qu'il soit confronté à une information du type "tel argument devrait être accepté", alors que c'est en contradiction avec ses croyances actuelles, représentées par son système d'argumentation.Nous avons étudié dans cette thèse diverses approches pour intégrer une information à un système d'argumentation.Notre première contribution est une adaptation du cadre AGM pour la révision de croyances, habituellement utilisé lorsque les croyances de l'agent sont représentées dans un formalisme logique. Nous avons notamment adapté les postulats de rationalité proposés dans le cadre AGM pour pouvoir caractériser des opérateurs de révision de systèmes d'argumentation, et nous avons proposé différents moyens de générer les systèmes d'argumentation résultant de la révision.Nous avons ensuite proposé d'utiliser la révision AGM comme un outil pour réviser les systèmes d'argumentation. Il s'agit cette fois-ci d'une approche par encodage en logique du système d'argumentation, qui permet d'utiliser les opérateurs de révision usuels pour obtenir le résultat souhaité.Enfin, nous avons étudié le problème du forçage d'un ensemble d'arguments (comment modifier le système pour qu'un ensemble donné soit une extension). Nous avons proposé une nouvelle famille d'opérateurs qui garantissent le succès de l'opération, contrairement aux opérateurs de forçage existants, et nous avons montré qu'une traduction de nos approches en problèmes de satisfaction ou d'optimisation booléenne permet de développer des outils efficaces pour calculer le résultat du forçageThis thesis tackles the problem of integrating a new piece of information in an abstract argumentation framework. Such a framework is a directed graph such that its nodes represent the arguments, and the directed edges represent the attacks between arguments. There are different ways to decide which arguments are accepted by the agent who uses such a framework to represent her beliefs.An agent may be confronted with a piece of information such that "this argument should be accepted", which is in contradiction with her current beliefs, represented by her argumentation framework.In this thesis, we have studied several approaches to incorporate a piece of information in an argumentation framework.Our first contribution is an adaptation of the AGM framework for belief revision, which has been developed for characterizing the incorporation of a new piece of information when the agent's beliefs are represented in a logical setting. We have adapted the rationality postulates from the AGM framework to characterize the revision operators suited to argumentation frameworks, and we have identified several ways to generate the argumentation frameworks resulting from the revision.We have also shown how to use AGM revision as a tool for revising argumentation frameworks. Our approach uses a logical encoding of the argumentation framework to take advantage of the classical revision operators, for deriving the expected result.At last, we have studied the problem of enforcing a set of arguments (how to change an argumentation framework so that a given set of arguments becomes an extension). We have developed a new family of operators which guarantee the success of the enforcement process, contrary to the existing approaches, and we have shown that a translation of our approaches into satisfaction and optimization problems makes possible to develop efficient tools for computing the result of the enforcement
Books on the topic "Logics and argumentation"
2
Hintikka, Jaakko. What if-- ?: Toward excellence in reasoning. Mountain View, Ca: Mayfield Pub., 1991.
Find full text
3
1941-, Keeley Stuart M., ed. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010.
Find full text
4
1941, Keeley Stuart M., ed. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Bowling Green State University, 2007.
Find full text
5
1941-, Keeley Stuart M., ed. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall, 2001.
Find full text
6
1941-, Keeley Stuart M., ed. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.
Find full text
7
Browne, M. Neil. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1986.
Find full text
8
1941-, Keeley Stuart M., ed. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
Find full text
9
1941-, Keeley Stuart M., ed. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall, 1998.
Find full text
10
Browne, M. Neil. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "Logics and argumentation"
1
Michel, Torsten. "Logics of argumentation." In The Rhetoric of Inquiry in International Relations, 71–99. London: Routledge, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003146100-4.
Full text
2
Modgil, S. "Hierarchical Argumentation." In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 319–32. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11853886_27.
Full text
3
Haenni, Rolf, Jan-Willem Romeijn, Gregory Wheeler, and Jon Williamson. "Probabilistic Argumentation." In Probabilistic Logics and Probabilistic Networks, 21–31. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0008-6_3.
Full text
4
Ben-Naim, Jonathan. "Argumentation-Based Paraconsistent Logics." In Graph-Based Representation and Reasoning, 19–24. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08389-6_2.
Full text
5
Prakken, Henry, and Gerard Vreeswijk. "Logics for Defeasible Argumentation." In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 219–318. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3.
Full text
6
Brewka, Gerhard. "Nonmonotonic Tools for Argumentation." In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 1–6. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15675-5_1.
Full text
7
Haenni, Rolf, Jan-Willem Romeijn, Gregory Wheeler, and Jon Williamson. "Networks for Probabilistic Argumentation." In Probabilistic Logics and Probabilistic Networks, 107–10. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0008-6_10.
Full text
8
Governatori, G., M. J. Maher, G. Antoniou, and D. Billington. "Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logics." In PRICAI 2000 Topics in Artificial Intelligence, 27–37. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44533-1_7.
Full text
9
Vesic, Srdjan, and Leendert van der Torre. "Beyond Maxi-Consistent Argumentation Operators." In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 424–36. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_33.
Full text
10
Schwarzentruber, François, Srdjan Vesic, and Tjitze Rienstra. "Building an Epistemic Logic for Argumentation." In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 359–71. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_28.
Full textConference papers on the topic "Logics and argumentation"
1
Grossi, Davide, Wiebe van der Hoek, and Louwe B. Kuijer. "Logics of Preference when There Is No Best." In 17th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning {KR-2020}. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/kr.2020/46.
Full textAbstract:
Well-behaved preferences (e.g., total pre-orders) are a cornerstone of several areas in artificial intelligence, from knowledge representation, where preferences typically encode likelihood comparisons, to both game and decision theories, where preferences typically encode utility comparisons. Yet weaker (e.g., cyclical) structures of comparison have proven important in a number of areas, from argumentation theory to tournaments and social choice theory. In this paper we provide logical foundations for reasoning about this type of preference structures where no obvious best elements may exist. Concretely, we compare and axiomatize a number of ways in which the concepts of maximality and optimality can be generalized in this general class of preferences. We thereby expand the scope of the long-standing tradition of the logical analysis of preference.
2
Borg, AnneMarie, and Christian Straßer. "Relevance in Structured Argumentation." In Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence {IJCAI-18}. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/242.
Full textAbstract:
We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence relations obtained by systems of structured argumentation. Relevance desiderata concern the robustness of a consequence relation under the addition of irrelevant information. For an account of what (ir)relevance amounts to we use syntactic and semantic considerations. Syntactic criteria have been proposed in the domain of relevance logic and were recently used in argumentation theory under the names of non-interference and crash-resistance. The basic idea is that the conclusions of a given argumentative theory should be robust under adding information that shares no propositional variables with the original database. Some semantic relevance criteria are known from non-monotonic logic. For instance, cautious monotony states that if we obtain certain conclusions from an argumentation theory, we may expect to still obtain the same conclusions if we add some of them to the given database. In this paper we investigate properties of structured argumentation systems that warrant relevance desiderata.
3
Vassiliades, Alexandros, Theodore Patkos, Giorgos Flouris, Antonis Bikakis, Nick Bassiliades, and Dimitris Plexousakis. "Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Domain Assignments." In Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence {IJCAI-21}. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/286.
Full textAbstract:
Argumentative discourse rarely consists of opinions whose claims apply universally. As with logical statements, an argument applies to specific objects in the universe or relations among them, and may have exceptions. In this paper, we propose an argumentation formalism that allows associating arguments with a domain of application. Appropriate semantics are given, which formalise the notion of partial argument acceptance, i.e. the set of objects or relations that an argument can be applied to. We show that our proposal is in fact equivalent to the standard Argumentation Frameworks of Dung, but allows a more intuitive and compact expression of some core concepts of commonsense and non-monotonic reasoning, such as the scope of an argument, exceptions, relevance and others.
4
D'Agostino, Marcello, and Sanjay Modgil. "A Study of Argumentative Characterisations of Preferred Subtheories." In Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence {IJCAI-18}. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/247.
Full textAbstract:
Classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) under the stable semantics yields argumentative characterisations of non-monotonic inference in Preferred Subtheories. This paper studies these characterisations under both the standard approach to Cl-Arg, and a recent dialectical approach that is provably rational under resource bounds. Two key contributions are made. Firstly, the preferred extensions are shown to coincide with the stable extensions. This means that algorithms and proof theories for the admissible semantics can now be used to decide credulous inference in Preferred Subtheories. Secondly, we show that as compared with the standard approach, the grounded semantics applied to the dialectical approach more closely approximates sceptical inference in Preferred Subtheories.
5
Fichte, Johannes, Markus Hecher, Yasir Mahmood, and Arne Meier. "Decomposition-Guided Reductions for Argumentation and Treewidth." In Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence {IJCAI-21}. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/259.
Full textAbstract:
Argumentation is a widely applied framework for modeling and evaluating arguments and its reasoning with various applications. Popular frameworks are abstract argumentation (Dung’s framework) or logic-based argumentation (Besnard-Hunter’s framework). Their computational complexity has been studied quite in-depth. Incorporating treewidth into the complexity analysis is particularly interesting, as solvers oftentimes employ SAT-based solvers, which can solve instances of low treewidth fast. In this paper, we address whether one can design reductions from argumentation problems to SAT-problems while linearly preserving the treewidth, which results in decomposition-guided (DG) reductions. It turns out that the linear treewidth overhead caused by our DG reductions, cannot be significantly improved under reasonable assumptions. Finally, we consider logic-based argumentation and establish new upper bounds using DG reductions and lower bounds.
6
Herzig, Andreas, and Antonio Yuste Ginel. "Multi-Agent Abstract Argumentation Frameworks With Incomplete Knowledge of Attacks." In Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence {IJCAI-21}. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/265.
Full textAbstract:
We introduce a multi-agent, dynamic extension of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), strongly inspired by epistemic logic, where agents have only partial information about the conflicts between arguments. These frameworks can be used to model a variety of situations. For instance, those in which agents have bounded logical resources and therefore fail to spot some of the actual attacks, or those where some arguments are not explicitly and fully stated (enthymematic argumentation). Moreover, we include second-order knowledge and common knowledge of the attack relation in our structures (where the latter accounts for the state of the debate), so as to reason about different kinds of persuasion and about strategic features. This version of multi-agent AFs, as well as their updates with public announcements of attacks (more concretely, the effects of these updates on the acceptability of an argument) can be described using S5-PAL, a well-known dynamic-epistemic logic. We also discuss how to extend our proposal to capture arbitrary higher-order attitudes and uncertainty.
7
Amgoud, Leila, and Srdjan Vesic. "Basic Equivalence in Logic-Based Argumentation." In 2011 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI). IEEE, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ictai.2011.97.
Full text
8
Baumann, Ringo, and Christof Spanring. "A Study of Unrestricted Abstract Argumentation Frameworks." In Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/112.
Full textAbstract:
Research in abstract argumentation typically per-tains to finite argumentation frameworks (AFs). Ac-tual or potential infinite AFs frequently occur if theyare used for the purpose of nonmonotonic entail-ment, so-called instantiation-based argumentation,or if they are involved as modeling tool for dia-logues, n-person-games or action sequences. Apartfrom these practical cases a profound analysis yieldsa better understanding of how the nonmonotonic the-ory of abstract argumentation works in general. Inthis paper we study a bunch of abstract propertieslike SCC-recursiveness, expressiveness or intertrans-latability for unrestricted AFs.
9
Tannai, Satoru, Yoshiaki Goto, Yoshihumi Maruyama, Takuto Itoya, Takeshi Hagiwara, and Hajime Sawamura. "A versatile argumentation system based on the Logic of Multiple-valued Argumentation." In 2011 11th International Conference on Hybrid Intelligent Systems (HIS 2011). IEEE, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/his.2011.6122134.
Full text
10
Raddaoui, Badran. "Computing Inconsistency Using Logical Argumentation." In International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence. SCITEPRESS - Science and and Technology Publications, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5220/0005221301640172.
Full textReports on the topic "Logics and argumentation"
1
Döring, Thomas. John Maynard Keynes und der Friedensvertrag von Versailles – Eine Rekonstruktion aus Sicht der Verhaltensökonomik. Sonderforschungsgruppe Institutionenanalyse, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.46850/sofia.9783941627239.
Full textAbstract:
Das Ziel der nachfolgenden Ausführungen ist, die Logik der Argumentation von Keynes im Licht der modernen verhaltensökonomischen Forschung zum individuellen Entscheidungsverhalten unter Berücksichtigung psychologischer Befunde zu systematischen Verzerrungen in der Wahrnehmung und Verarbeitung von Informationen, der (In-)Stabilität von Präferenzen im Zeitablauf sowie der normativen (Fehl-)Orientierung in Verhandlungssituationen zu rekonstruieren. Es wird zu diesem Zweck an Studien aus dem Bereich der empirischen Verhaltensforschung ebenso wie der experimentellen Ökonomik angeknüpft, um das aus Sicht der betroffenen Akteure – spieltheoretisch formuliert – aus dem Versailler Vertrag resultierende Negativsummenspiel zu plausibilisieren. Vor diesem Hintergrund erfolgt zunächst eine Darstellung der zentralen Einsichten und Implikationen des verhaltensökonomischen Ansatzes (Kapitel 2), wobei neben den Ursachen einer begrenzten Rationalität individuellen Entscheidungsverhaltens, der „verzerrenden“ Wirkung kognitiver Heuristiken und Illusionen sowie der Zeitinkonsistenz individueller Präferenzen auch auf die Bedeutung von Fairnessnormen und -einschätzungen für die Effizienz von Verhandlungsergebnissen näher eingegangen wird. Auf der Grundlage dieser allgemeinen Ausführungen zum Ansatz und zu den Ergebnissen der Verhaltensökonomik wird anschließend die von Keynes vorgelegte Analyse des Zustandekommens und der möglichen Folgen des Versailler Vertrages eingehend untersucht, um die vielfältigen Übereinstimmungen zwischen beiden Betrachtungsperspektiven herauszuarbeiten (Kapitel 3). Der Hinweis auf das Vorliegen von Präferenzinkonsistenzen, das Auftretens von sogenannten Ankereffekten, der Wirksamkeit von Stereotypen oder der Situationsgebundenheit des Verhaltens –um nur einige der von Keynes benannten Effekte zu nennen – lassen ihn als einen vergleichsweise „modernen Ökonomen“ er-scheinen. Dies kann zusätzlich durch den Verweis auf institutionen- wie politökonomische Überlegungen untermauert werden, die sich in seiner Bewertung des Vertragswerks ebenso finden wie die Relevanz des „Prinzips der effektiven Nachfrage“ als Quelle zu erwartender ökonomischer Krisenerscheinungen, die Keynes bereits hier im Vorgriff auf die späteren Ausführungen im Rahmen seiner „Allgemeiner Theorie der Beschäftigung, des Zinses und des Geldes“ zumindest implizit anklingen lässt (Kapitel 4).